Second Amendment Show-down Tomorrow

[RegBarc]

District of Columbia v. Heller is tomorrow. I think, once the decision is released, that the Court will make an up or down choice if the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is individual or not. I doubt their decision will remand it to a lower court without some sort of edict.

Even better, they'll be releasing audio recordings of oral arguments.

I've got a shiny Buffalo nickel for whoever iPod-izes it first. And as if it's no secret, I 100% support Heller on this one.

[aindik]

Originally Posted by RegBarc

District of Columbia v. Heller is tomorrow. I think, once the decision is released, that the Court will make an up or down choice if the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is individual or not. I doubt their decision will remand it to a lower court without some sort of edict.

If they adopt the position of the United States (i.e., the Solicitor General, i.e. the Bush Administration), they'll find that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, but they'll remand back to the lower courts with instructions to do further factfinding before determining whether the D.C. law violates that right or not.

Which kinda begs the question - if a total ban on handguns doesn't violate the Second Amendment, what does?

[RegBarc]

Originally Posted by aindik

If they adopt the position of the United States (i.e., the Solicitor General, i.e. the Bush Administration), they'll find that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, but they'll remand back to the lower courts with instructions to do further factfinding before determining whether the D.C. law violates that right or not.

Which kinda begs the question - if a total ban on handguns doesn't violate the Second Amendment, what does?

Not only a total ban on handguns, but a ban on loaded or even operable shotguns and long guns.

[Philosofy]

Here's a question: is banning a particular gun against the 2nd amendment? For instance, they can, and have, banned assault rifles and automatic weapons. I guess the argument was "they can still bear arms, just not these types of arms. Could the government theoretically limit us to bb guns and 22's, and still claim we can bear arms?

IIRC, the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the government from getting too much power. What can citizens, armed only with shotguns and rifles and handguns, do against today's military?

Its kind of ironic that we see all the civilian firepower in the mid east, and are horrified by it, but that's probably what the framers had in mind.

[JP]

Originally Posted by Philosofy

IIRC, the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the government from getting too much power. What can citizens, armed only with shotguns and rifles and handguns, do against today's military?

Squat. But that's because the founders never imagined a standing army. They were afraid of a standing army, that tyrannical presidents might use it to seek war for glory for themselves or to seize permanent power. They figured they'd just raise a militia whenever anything needed fighting.

[grondramb]

Originally Posted by JPriller

They figured they'd just raise a militia whenever anything needed fighting.

I guess they learned otherwise by 1791 but by then the constitution was written.

[InigoMontoya]

Originally Posted by Philosofy

IIRC, the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the government from getting too much power. What can citizens, armed only with shotguns and rifles and handguns, do against today's military?

In a stand up fight? Damned little. Barely enough enough to be considered harassment.

A more reasonable thought would be, "What could 100,000 DC Snipers do if they chose to target agents of the government and had the support of the people (ie, nobody saw nuthin')?" That's a much more interesting scenario; particularly since such tactics are damned hard to counter and require no organizational structure.

[Philosofy]

Originally Posted by InigoMontoya

In a stand up fight? Damned little. Barely enough enough to be considered harassment.

A more reasonable thought would be, "What could 100,000 DC Snipers do if they chose to target agents of the government and had the support of the people (ie, nobody saw nuthin')?" That's a much more interesting scenario; particularly since such tactics are damned hard to counter and require no organizational structure.

You're a damn good strategist. I'm glad you're on our side!

[pgogborn]

At the time of this post audio stream of Supreme Court available from CNN >
http://edition.cnn.com/video/live/li...?stream=stream

(no doubt other sites are also providing a stream)

[grondramb]

I think this is a good sign... we'll see.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...w125112D01.DTL

Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns


By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, March 18, 2008







(03-18) 13:55 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago.


Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far.


The justices dug deeply into arguments on one of the Constitution's most hotly debated provisions as demonstrators shouted slogans outside. Guns are an American right, argued one side. "Guns kill," responded the other.

[busyba]

"Guns kill," responded the other.

Well duh! They wouldn't be much use if they didn't.

Silly protesters.

[Combat Medic]

Originally Posted by RegBarc

District of Columbia v. Heller is tomorrow. I think, once the decision is released, that the Court will make an up or down choice if the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is individual or not. I doubt their decision will remand it to a lower court without some sort of edict.

Even better, they'll be releasing audio recordings of oral arguments.

I've got a shiny Buffalo nickel for whoever iPod-izes it first. And as if it's no secret, I 100% support Heller on this one.

Has anybody found an iPod-able version of the arguments?

[RegBarc]

Originally Posted by Combat Medic

Has anybody found an iPod-able version of the arguments?

Here you go.

[Combat Medic]

Thanks Reg

[TheIndependent]

hopefully the Constitution is upheld, I have a feeling they'll get this one right.

[RegBarc]

Originally Posted by pdjplano

hopefully the Constitution is upheld, I have a feeling they'll get this one right.

If Justice Kennedy's questions and tone are any indication, we're going to end out on top I think.

[Turtleboy]

Like usual, Justice Thomas asked the best questions.

[RegBarc]

Originally Posted by Turtleboy

Like usual, Justice Thomas asked the best questions.

As if things never change, I'm waiting for people to keep calling him dumb.

[busyba]

He's dumb.





(I'd hate to keep you waiting. )

[JP]

Originally Posted by RegBarc

As if things never change, I'm waiting for people to keep calling him dumb.

Was that an intentional funny? Dumb as in the older meaning of "mute", a play on TB's comment (itself, I suspect, a play on a recent story that reported Justice Thomas has not asked a question in oral arguments for a couple of years now)?

[Turtleboy]

Originally Posted by JPriller

Was that an intentional funny? Dumb as in the older meaning of "mute", a play on TB's comment (itself, I suspect, a play on a recent story that reported Justice Thomas has not asked a question in oral arguments for a couple of years now)?

No, people claim that Thomas is stupid and unintelligent because he chooses not to ask questions at oral arguments.

(And because he's a black conservative).

[busyba]

Originally Posted by Turtleboy

No, people claim that Thomas is stupid and unintelligent because he chooses not to ask questions at oral arguments.

(And because he's a black conservative).

...but mostly because he thinks "is that a pubic hair on your Diet Coke?" is a top-notch pickup line.

[TheIndependent]

Originally Posted by Turtleboy

No, people claim that Thomas is stupid and unintelligent because he chooses not to ask questions at oral arguments.

is anyone on this board of that (ridiculous) opinion?

[JP]

Originally Posted by Turtleboy

No, people claim that Thomas is stupid and unintelligent because he chooses not to ask questions at oral arguments.

(And because he's a black conservative).

The same criticisms would be made of a white conservative in the same circumstances.

But I don't think less of Thomas because of his color or his lack of questions. I think less of Thomas because he supported George's belief that a president can lock up anyone they want for as long as they want with no right to counsel nor to challenge their detention just by uttering the words "unlawful enemy combatant" over them.

That's not intelligent. Nor is it conservative, at least by the old-school definition, though I admit it fits quite well with what modern conservatism has become.

[RegBarc]

Originally Posted by JPriller

Was that an intentional funny? Dumb as in the older meaning of "mute", a play on TB's comment (itself, I suspect, a play on a recent story that reported Justice Thomas has not asked a question in oral arguments for a couple of years now)?

His not asking questions has a reasonable and plausible explanation behind it. Part of it was his specific ethnic upbringing, but probably also because he thinks that oral arguments are largely unnecessary (which, as fun as it is to listen to them, I agree with).